• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

JT9D-7J Engine

The sad part of this whole thing is, somehow Freeclimber44 thinks the placement of this engine is needed to prove that UA 175 hit the South Tower.

Freeclimber44, here's a clue. No where in the "ofical story" does this engine being found matter. You envision the perps going through all this trouble planting something for no reason at all. If this engine was never found, nothing would change.

Let us know what Pratt & Whitney has to say when the stop laughing at you. :rolleyes:
 
I posted this in the youtube video, but I'll post it here too.

In addition to waypastvne's post, we do not see partial collapse of the roof in the video as we do in the FEMA videos.

Therefore, it is entirely possible that the collapse of the 2nd tower caused debris from the first collapse to move. This would include aircraft debris. The only way to know that these debris on WTC5 were "planted" is to show a picture or video of WTC5 with the roof partially collapsed that has no plane debris.

Freeclimber can't seem to grasp this concept because it's logic and reasoning - something which Truthers severely lack.
 
One thing freeclimber has picked up on from wherever he's cribbing his answers is the delay between the time the plane hit and the time the fuselage debris on the roof was "discovered." As if any amount of time would make dragging a hundred-square-foot piece of aircraft hull to the top of a skyscraper --completely unobserved by anyone-- any easier.
 
ApolloGnomon said:
One thing freeclimber has picked up on from wherever he's cribbing his answers is the delay between the time the plane hit and the time the fuselage debris on the roof was "discovered." As if any amount of time would make dragging a hundred-square-foot piece of aircraft hull to the top of a skyscraper --completely unobserved by anyone-- any easier.
Click to expand...

And it's not like anyone had other things to do at the time or anything. . .
 
Freeclimber44 said:
6) ...I do not believe the Murray Street engine wreckage was from one of the engines that powered the attack plane that crashed into WTC2, as relying on the engine to break loose from the plane and be propelled several blocks north of the building would have been too problematic.
Click to expand...

Is this the Texas sharpshooter fallacy or is some other fallacy more appropriate?

Freeclimber, nothing depended on wherever the engines ended up.

Try to picture yourself at the plotting meeting in the NWO's evil lair, trying to pitch the idea to Number 1:

You want to engineer an elaborate system to let a jet engine be ejected from the buiilding during the crash.

Number 1 points out that the plane they are going to use already has frikkin' engines, and if that's the sort of thing that might actually happen, why not just let it happen? If it's the sort of thing that's not likely to happen, then that would look suspicious so why make it happen at all?

But it would look really cool, you counter.

Number 1 begins to suspect your judgement, strokes Mr. Bigglesworth and eyes the red button which controls your chair.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
You want to engineer an elaborate system to let a jet engine be ejected from the buiilding during the crash.

Number 1 points out that the plane they are going to use already has frikkin' engines, and if that's the sort of thing that might actually happen, why not just let it happen? If it's the sort of thing that's not likely to happen, then that would look suspicious so why make it happen at all?
Click to expand...
Why is it every CT sounds like something dreamed up by a not particularly bright ten year old?
 
There's a whole website full of short scripts written by what seems to be not particularly bright ten year olds.
http://www.simplyscripts.com/

Most of these are more coherent than 'fire an engine out of hte building to fake a planecrash' CT.
 
I find this whole idea bizarre. Why would you crash an aircraft in to a tower and put another engine inside it to be ejected from the wreckage when the aircraft itself has two engines?

Furthermore, why would you put the Wrong engine inside to be ejected?

It is one of those stories invented to explain something that doesn't need explaining.

Why would they have bothered doing it at all? What was the guarantee that this engine would be ejected and not the other two?
 
Captain_Swoop said:
I find this whole idea bizarre. Why would you crash an aircraft in to a tower and put another engine inside it to be ejected from the wreckage when the aircraft itself has two engines?

Furthermore, why would you put the Wrong engine inside to be ejected?

It is one of those stories invented to explain something that doesn't need explaining.

Why would they have bothered doing it at all? What was the guarantee that this engine would be ejected and not the other two?
Click to expand...

It had to happen that way, because then a conspiracist wouldn't have to face the earth shattering dilemma of having to admit he was wrong, on the internet!
 
Last edited:
Captain_Swoop said:
It is one of those stories invented to explain something that doesn't need explaining.
Click to expand...
That defines so much of CT.

Why would they have bothered doing it at all? What was the guarantee that this engine would be ejected and not the other two?
Click to expand...
Yeah, three engines would have been kind of hard to explain. Add that one in with the chance of unexploded ordinance being found in the WTC rubble, photo/video of the second "cruise missile" or one of the thousands of "didn't really die" victims turning up alive... :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom